Rocket Scientist

In keeping with the Uber Cool Nerd God Theme, I went searching through my long list of quotes for technology related quotes.  This is the first batch.  I hope you enjoy them.

The big corporations are suddenly taking notice of the web, and their reactions have been slow. Even the computer industry failed to see the importance of the Internet, but that’s not saying much. Let’s face it, the computer industry failed to see that the century would end.

                                                            –Douglas Adams

“But eventually you’ll solve my problem, right?”
“Sure, if your problem is too much optimism.” in Dogbert’s Tech Support

                                                            –Scott Adams

I found some numbers that support your strategic plan. I had to take the square root of a negative number to do it. The timeline is on this mobius strip.

                                                            –Scott Adams

If you have any trouble sounding condescending, find a UNIX user to show you how it’s done.

                                                            –Scott Adams

Generations of presenters have adopted the K.I.S.S principle — Keep It Simple Stupid. This is the K.I.S.S. of D.E.A.T.H. for audience concentration, however. The speaker, sensing inattention, simplifies still more. This downward spiral ends in the Lucidity Paradox: the speaker’s points eventually become so clear they disappear.

                                                            –Dale Dauten

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.

                                                            –Richard Feynman

An education isn’t how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It’s being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don’t.

                                                            –Anatole France

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.

                                                –John Kenneth Galbraith

The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship.

                                                           –Robert Heinlein

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.

                                                         –Elbert Hubbard

Genius, in truth, means little more than the faculty of perceiving in an unhabitual way.

                                                        –William James

Accomplishing the impossible means only that the boss will add it to your regular duties.

                                                                –Doug Larsen

 
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

                                                                        –H.L. Mencken

A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.

                                                                        –Emo Phillips

 
Don’t push the on-button if you don’t know where the off-button is.

                                                           –Solomon Short

Remember, vote well and vote often.  And, enjoy!

So, once again, cheating, um, persistence (not mine, by the way) has won out and this week I am the Uber Cool Nerd God.  But how to prove it?  Sure there’s the test, but I coulda faked it.

Well, since the first question people seem to ask when I tell them I’m a Rocket Scientist is “What do you think of String Theory?”  Well, I’ve always had to defer because I’m not a theoretical physicist, but I decided I should learn more about it (voluntarily) which definitely goes to support at least the “Nerd God” part of my description, so I watched (or rather started to watch) a special on it.  I’d already done some reading.   Now, up until now, I’ve been at a loss to understand those nutballs who sneer and evolution and global warming and think scientists see their science as a “religion”.  Well, now I get it.

Clearly, Nova pulled out all the stops with graphics and people getting excited and throwing around the word, “theory”and explaining how this theory has “revealed” this and that.  But, they also say they have no testable data, and that, to build this theory, they worked to shoehorn the forces and quantum physics we knew but couldn’t explain into the theory.  Then, to doublecheck it, they, what, checked the answers they’d already plugged in.  Now, at the risk of being pelted with pocket protectors, I have to say two things, (a) believing that there really is a single theory that incorporates all of classical physics as well as all the contradictory quantum physics is, well, a faith.  A belief like that is not science (though inspired by science) until it has facts to back it; it’s a belief.  That’s not a bad thing, but it is what it is.  Also, (b) a theory that is demonstrated with the data it was built to fit isn’t a theory.  Theories fit data, true, but they are testable and have to have new data fit nicely too.  Or they’re speculation.  Nothing wrong with speculating and I won’t say String Theory isn’t perfectly reasonable speculation, but I’ll be waiting on some data (perhaps via the Hadron Collider, maybe) before I hang my hat.  You can talk about such speculation in science, but to call them a theory is misleading.

Worse, it reflects poorly on science theories that have been thoroughly grounded and repeatedly tested with new data and new measurements.  I mean, we see what natural selection has wrought with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  Not just a review of old records, we’ve seen it.  Ditto for not just measurements but visible results from changes to the world’s climate.  But, these glitzy, glossy bringing-science-to-the-common-man shows use wording that make speculation sound like established fact and works around the caveats and limitations scientists surely know but don’t get revealed in the footage.  I hate that.

Note that science stories are not the only “educational” programming that does this and drives me nuts.  I hate some old history shows describing people and places we have only a few shreds of data about and then describing aspects of life that they have no basis for in a matter of fact way that sounds like it’s absolute truth.  For example, some Egyptian pharoah’s tomb is found.  There are two wall paintings on the crumbling, much robbed spot, one of which depicts the King with a woman and three small children.  The narrator does the voice-over, “Clearly, this Pharoah was deeply attached to his children, spending more time with them what was usual.”  Uh, OK, it could be.  It could also be that pictures painted on the tomb of a “divine king” had as much relation to reality as most obituaries/eulogies do today, if that much.  It could be that he was a gourmet cook and was about to make his specialty, roast child with all the trimmings.  Not that he couldn’t have been a great father, but really, a bit of tomb propaganda doesn’t make it a done deal.

Truth is, I think real history and real science are plenty fascinating without the “for the masses” glitz.  I’m guessing my total nerd-ness is likely what makes the glamor irritate me.  I mean, foolishly perhaps, I think many people are smart enough to handle the real stuff.

That explains the nerd.  Sadly, I’m at a complete loss to explain the “Uber Coolness” - that’s never come up before.

In any case, today I’m the Uber Cool Nerd God, so, whatever your question, whether it’s my bag or not, I’ll be answering authoritatively.  Because, after all, that is what we UCNGs do.

Have at.  Remember, without your questions, my “Ask ???” articles are pretty pointless.

Oh, and don’t forget to vote on the new poll, when I get it up.

So it’s time to steal from myself.  I’d like to break the rather somber mood that’s all but inevitable this week and, fortunately, Roy Hilbinger prompted me to make a mini-rant on my own darn blog so I’m actually stealing double duty, y’know, from me.  Besides, as a break from tragedy, I thought I’d stir a bit of controversy.  Please note that everything stated here is my opinion which I do not equate with fact.  Please assume “in my opinion” or “I think” on every assertion. 

Roy, a brilliant individual who has an appreciable photographic talent,  was questioning or perhaps challenging the notion that religion leads to responsibility and “doing the right thing.” Now, before those of you that are fiercely religious come trouncing on me, let me say up front I’m perfectly cool with religion.  If the comfort you derive from your faith, the guidance you get, makes you happy and inspires you to be a better person, I think that’s fabulous.  Whatever works best for you.  There are things I believe with no real rationale other than they make me happy; I certainly don’t begrudge you your happiness.

In fact, I’ll even go so far as to say, for some, religion does encourage responsibility if only in the examples provided such as Jesus Christ or Buddha or Hecate for that matter.  Instead, I’d like to focus on two questions:

(1) Can one be responsible and selfless without religion? [And, by religion, I mean faith in a or multiple higher powers as opposed to affiliated with a particular religion or organized religion (though, of course, one can be affiliated with one).  By that definition, all of the monotheistic and polytheistic folks out there, from pagan to Catholic to Muslim to Hindi to Shinto apply.  It would not apply to agnostics or atheists.  For those of you that believe in some sort of collective consciousness, you can decide for yourselves if it applies.]

(2) Can religion [same definition] become an excuse to forgo responsibility? And, if so, how does one determine that it isn’t the inherent responsibility/goodness in people that gravitate toward the best parts of religion rather than religion being essential to their responsibility/goodness?

You’ll be stunned to hear I have opinions on this topic.  On (1), duh!  I see it all the time.  People who are strongly and rationally atheist or agnostic who are also responsible and dedicated to the betterment of people as a whole and, generally, the planet as well.  You are welcome to rebut my position, but I will be unlikely to give your opinion much weight if it is predicated on what someone thinks an atheist must be.  We’re talking about people here, not hypothetical constructs.  You can argue what a representative self-proclaimed atheists does, but, as we asking if it’s possible, anecdotal evidence on a particular selfish agnostic will not compel me.

As for (2), I not only think it can be, I think that kind of thinking is very common, depending on the type of faith.  There are certain types of faith where that kind of thinking is completely foreign, like Quakers or most pagan or other nature-loving religions.  In these and others, doing good is part and parcel of the religion, and hatred, waste and violence are eschewed.  In these religions, “eternal reward” is less a factor and fulfillment comes from doing the right thing, protecting the environment, and/or serving one’s fellow man.  However, for many others, religion can provide (a) an excuse to forgo making one’s own decisions or doing one’s own thinking in favor of someone else’s guidance, (b) a rationale to look down or judge others, (c) an excuse to refuse to take responsibility for one’s own actions [e.g. such as a belief in an all powerful God might make one blasé about addressing man’s contribution to global warming - after all, won’t God fix it?], and (d) even a perceived “carte blanche” to do whatever they want since either we’re all sinners already or because repenting or performing a great sacrifice in some deity’s name will undo all that came before (i.e. belief trumps my behavior).  Some of you are probably laughing at (d), but I’ve seen that thinking in action.

So, how do you know if your beliefs are sending you down the wrong path?  Well, if you’ve read this far and aren’t already consigning me to hell, that’s probably a good sign.  Actually, if you ask that question, I think that’s a good sign.  Other behaviors to look out for (in my opinion):
- If hatred or contempt for any other group of people is part of your religion or what is preached at your church, I think you’re doing it wrong.
- If your religion encourages you to let God take charge of things like your child’s illness or your poverty or the environment instead of your own efforts (nothing wrong with asking for his/her/their help in addition to your own, mind you), you might want to rethink that.  God’s grace can be a wonderful thing, but it shouldn’t preclude giving your child insulin or encourage you wait around in front of the TV for someone to knock on the door and offer you a job.
- If your religious leaders require you to prove your faith by doing what they tell you, you might want to rethink it.  For example: missionary providing medical care to people in third world countries: good.  People with obvious toupees and loud suits and voices exhorting you to show your love of Jesus by sending them a check: bad.
- If you think your acceptance of any deity means you’re not responsible for your actions, I don’t think you’re getting the big picture.

Doing the right thing comes part and parcel with responsibility. I may not be able to solve the world’s ills, but I can do everything in my power not to be part of the problem. If I do my best, live honestly, treat people with consideration and respect, look out for the well-being of others, I don’t have to manufacture sins for others so I feel better about myself.  I already do.  I don’t have to wait to die to get my reward; doing good is rewarding.  If I  don’t have to lie or hide my activities, I don’t have to cover up the past (or cover my own butt) if I’m doing the right thing. Now, that may sound like a thankless rewardless task, but self-respect is something that money can’t buy. You can buy something that looks like that, you can point to all the people who worry about you or get excited by you (Paris Hilton, anyone?), but it’s ephemeral and doesn’t help you look in the mirror every day.  I leave answering the second part of (2) as an exercise for the student.

Perhaps Hell isn’t a place where you burn and are punished indefinitely. Perhaps its a room of mirrors where you can’t escape seeing yourself as you really are. And, Heaven is the same place. The only difference is who you see.

See, now you got me all philosophical.   Here are other examples:

Apparently I’m Waxing Philosophical
My Thoughts on the Afterlife
The Face of God
Joining in the Worm Toss

Two completely unrelated footnotes:  I got hugged by an ex-astronaut today who happens to be a great person, too.  That was kind of nice.

And my daughter, the baby, has proven she IS a native-born Texan.  She ate a whole tamale.

Apollo 1 is not as well-known as some of the other NASA tragedies and, because it happened 42 years ago, many people don’t remember or even know about it.  I doubt that’s true of the events that happened on this day, January 28, 1986, 23 years ago today.  On that day that STS-51L ended 73 seconds after launch, disintegrated, taking all those on board to their deaths.

The Shuttle Challenger’s stack lifted off, but, as soon as the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) ignited, smoke could be seen escaping from the stack as the heat from the flames from burning solid fuel escaped past O-rings in the joint of the SRB that had shrunk and become brittle in that cold January morning.  Within only a few seconds, the O-rings had been vaporized by the escaping hot gases but an aluminum oxide layer had acted as a temporary seal.  However, as the Shuttle approached Max Q (that point where they reached maximum dynamic pressure), the Shuttle also was hit with the highest wind shear seen to date in the Shuttle program, which disrupted the temporary seal.  That’s when the plume first appeared.

The joint’s plume impinged on the external tank within a second.  Less than 4.5 seconds later, the external tank was leaking.  This was happening too fast and the visual evidence had not been “noticed” except by cameras for controllers or crew to understand what was happening.  Less than 8 seconds after the External Tank began leaking, the leaking SRB started pulling away from its rear strut.  The pilot’s last utterance, “Uh oh.”  Less than a second after the SRB first started pulling away, after the hydrogen tank blasted into the oxygen tank and the SRB slammed into the external tank structure, the Shuttle, yanked from it’s proper attitude and was torn to pieces by aerodynamic forces.

For just over a minute, we had a launch and then, nothing but bits of debris and remains.

Again, this was a preventable accident.  The by-blow and and extrusion were known phenomena as were the characteristics of the O-rings (or at least uncertainty about them).  Engineers with the SRB contractor, Morton Thoikol, had had concerns, but they had been dismissed by both contractor and NASA management.

Other sources:
Wikipedia
Richard Feynman’s Appendix
Challenger Commission Report
Informative website with pictures, data and video

This is a tough week for NASA and for those that care about safety and space.  In the space of six days, we have the anniversaries of each of the worst space disasters resulting in loss of life (though we have lost ground support personnel in other accidents): Apollo I, STS-51L (Challenger) and STS-107 (Columbia).  It’s a sad time for us, a time to reflect on what we’ve done wrong and on the brave and talented souls that paid the ultimate price for our mistakes.

The sad thing, as I mentioned in a comment for yesterday’s blog, is that all three of these accidents were preventable.  Of all the lessons we should be taking home, that is the one we must not lose sight of.  There are issues and unexpected bad things that can always hinder us in space, things we can’t necessarily be fully prepared for; we must not add those risks we can correct.

But, as sad as it is to discuss these, they stand as lessons that may have helped us further down the line, that, hopefully taught us things that have saved other lives.  If we have learned too late, at least we learned.  But those of us who care passionately about the safety of the crew, those of us who are responsible for the lives of others, we must look back on these mistakes periodically, not only to make sure those lessons are still fresh in our minds, but also to remind ourselves why we work so hard to do the right thing.  To prevent tragedies like this.

If I’m sometimes critical of our human space program, I have to say that a huge portion of what everyone does is to protect human life.  These accidents remind us why that effort is worth it.

42 years ago today, on January 27, 1967, the crew of AS-204, which they called Apollo 1, climbed into the crew module for the new Apollo missions, the first involving three crewmembers for a plugs-out test, which was not expected to be hazardous.  The module was pressurized to 16 psia, higher than ambient, and was 100% oxygen, which the contractor recommended against.  The crew module had a number of known but uncorrected flaws and the crew had expressed concern about fire hazards.  The astronauts had also lobbied successfully for an outward opening door, but that design change was not incorporated here.  Still, flawed or not, the hope was to successfully pass the test today and launch it three weeks later in February.

At 6:31:07, *before the test had even started*, the first cry of fire came from the cabin.  For about 10 seconds, one could hear frantic movements followed by Chafee yelling,  “We’ve got a bad fire! Let’s get out! We’re burning up! We’re on fire! Get us out of here!”  Then, a scream of pain and the end of the transmission, seventeen seconds after the first report of fire.  The crew module ruptured from the pressure and toxic black smoke poured from the module.

It took another eight minutes before they could open the hatch, by which time the fire had gone out.  It took 7.5 hours to remove the crews remains, as they were fused in place by the melted nylon of their suits.  It was not a fun way to die.

In the end, a number of key factors were called out as potential causes and contributors.  The high pressure oxygen environment was very dangerous from a flammability standpoint (”in which a bar of aluminum can burn like wood” according to Wikipedia).  There was a wealth of off-gassing flammable nonmetallics like nylon and velcro.  Wiring and plumbing was substandard (note that 1407 wiring *design* problems were corrected after Apollo 1) with a stripped and abraded wire near a leaky coolant line (a potential exothermic explosion) but just the static electricity from their suits were found sufficient to have started a fire in that atmosphere.  We were not short of smoking guns and no single cause was ever determined as *the* cause.

We were feckless, we were sloppy and we thought that the success with Mercury and Gemini at 100% oxygen made us bulletproof.   Astronauts Edward H. White II, Virgil I. Grissom, and Roger B. Chaffee paid the price.

You’ll be pleased to know that nonmetallics are given careful consideration before flight, requiring both toxicity and flammability off-gassing tests (if not a previously flown material).  Even the simplest ground tests are done with emergency personnel on site, with procedures for rescuing test subjects practiced and in hand (and that have saved lives since, but that’s another story), a thorough safety review before proceeding.  We fly with an air mixture (except in the suits) and wiring and materials are held to very high standards.  Materials used, particular “on” the crewmembers must be self-extinguishing (and materials developed for space use are also in use by firefighters all over the world).

But, as we move forward, we must remember these lessons and not get complacent.  It’s been a long time since such a thing happened and, especially as we move to commercial human spaceflight, these lessons should be revisited.  I hope everyone with the intention of shuttling people into space has read and understood the lessons in this one tragic not-quite-test.

May we never forget.

Other links:
NASA Apollo 1 Site
Wikipedia (which has other resources linked and a good summary)
Video of newsbrief on Apollo 1 Fire
Apollo 1 timeline
Photos from Apollo 1
Apollo 1 Memorial 2007
Memorial from today
Another memorial from today

Back at the end of 2008, a painful but very important report came out discussing something that’s at the heart a space safety profession: what happened to the crew of STS-107.  The report is available on the net and there is an excellent description of the key points of this published in the New York Times.  Even more briefly, the restraints and protective devices on the Orbiter were not effective and our hapless crew was tossed and whipped around .  Fortunately, they were believed to be unconscious.

Having effective restraints wouldn’t have made the difference between living and dying for the crew (sadly), but there are definitely lessons here to learn from this tragedy.  As much as improved restraints and seats might be a good thing, the report is also a grim reminder that the first order of business must always be to keep such events from happening.  Reactive measures are never as good as preventative measures.

The first goal of safety, of course, must be to preclude bad things from happening.  Naturally, this doesn’t apply just to space or to safety.  However useful a seat belt is, not getting into an accident is preferred.  When driving,  some of that is out of one’s hands.  In space and in other arenas of life, it can be even less so.  And that’s a key element, too.  Looking out for yourself is a good thing, but we must be equally diligent when it is someone else’s butt depending on our diligence.

When I was in college, an engineering professor told us a story, which I cannot vouch for veracity-wise, but I’m going to share anyway.  According to the professor, when the US army first used paratroopers in battle, apparently the rate of failure for the parachutes was very high (he used ~50%, but I would hope that’s an exaggeration).  Those that packed the parachutes were not the ones using them and this failure rate was addressed by requiring those that packed them to take jumps using their own parachutes.

I’d like to think that we can think about the well-being of others without having to resort to something that drastic, but I’ve seen people get pretty cavalier when other people’s lives were on the line.  It’s not an attitude I respect.  And, as I mentioned, space is not the only place where this is an issue.

Examples include drunk drivers and an attitude that one’s “freedom” trumps the right to live for the poor souls on the road with one.  I’ve got no sympathy for that kind of thinking and, sure, their judgment is impaired, but then, how many people have only driven drunk once?  The first time, perhaps, you were an idiot.  The second, well that’s something different.  And, for the record, you can kill someone the first time.  If you must drink yourself silly, stay home.  Or take a cab.

Perhaps it’s one reason I am so easily irked by those that are cavalier about destroying the environment or extending rights to all people, or who shrug when stories of hardship come from overseas, even if we are a factor in their hardship.

There are many things that make us human, but nothing, in my opinion, makes us more so than our compassion, our consideration, our responsibility, our unwillingness to allow others to be hurt through our mistakes, malice or laziness.  I wish those traits were universal.

I’m sorry.  This is not as good a post as I would like.  It is always hard for me to write about Columbia.  

 Try to bear with me.

Nearly four months after Hurricane Ike wandered through this area knocking over fences, ripping of gutters and tearing roofs (including mine) to shreds, our lovely insurance agency finally coughed up money, which, of course, had to go through our mortgage company so they could dole it in dibs and dabs so, finally, I could get the new roof everyone wants me to have.  Damn, I so love insurance companies.  Not.

Them: I just set up a new metal roof using enameled metal that looks like tile.  It’s very cool [reading cutting edge] but a little pricy.
Me: I prefer anodized metal so I can get the corrosion resistance but still have the metallic sheen.
Them: Uh, right.

They mentioned solar shingles which I did research on about four years ago and then we started talking about steps one can take to reduce energy usage.  They said one can start changing to compact fluorescents and we were able to show the difference betweemcompact fluorescents and LED bulbs (which, although we’d replaced all the incandescents with CFLs, we have found a source for some LED bulbs too now and are moving in that direction).  So, we ended up telling them the best place to find energy efficient light bulbs.

So, yes, I’m going to talk about energy efficiency again, today.  I could tell you it was strictly for global warming, which, in my opinion, is a serious concern and well worth making an effort to address, but not everyone is willing to accept the scientific consensus.  I, however, do.  I might add that, while our local oil companies, particularly Exxon, are still refusing to acknowledge the danger and still pay millions to keep up the “doubts” prevalent in the public’s eye, oil producing nations in the middle east are investing millions, even billions,  into green technologies and new research for renewable energy resources.  I applaud that thinking but it makes me a little worried.  I, for one, would like to cut our dependence on outside nations for energy.  Don’t you agree?

But, that’s still a nationwide issue.  There’s another one, that I find to be compelling: it saves money.  Where I live, air conditioning throughout eight months of the year is quite costly, not just because of the temperature but because of the humidity.  Our closed European type housing (which is more practical for a colder climate) makes forgoing air conditioning desperately uncomfortable and downright dangerous for the potential for mold.  So that means, my house, at 2800 square feet, had electric bills ~700+ dollars a month in the summer (which was only ~100 dollars less than when I lived in a rental house at 1/3 the size year round - an electric heat pump appears to be less than effective in this climate).  We changed to Green Mountain energy (which uses 100% renewable sources), but also changed to programmable thermostats, added solar screens for two of our worst windows, and changed out all the light bulbs in my house with high efficiency ones.  These small changes save us between $100-200 dollars a month during the summer.  That means, for the cost we invested last year to do these, we paid them all off in two months.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a heck of a good reason to make things more efficient (and we’ll be doing more work on windows this year).  Next house, we’ll be picking something built smarter or building it ourselves.

So, since we were dealing with an angsty teen, I decided to provide the kind of words of wisdom the young are so unlikely to heed until it’s too late.  Or maybe I’m doing them a disservice.  These are among my favorites, though I should add that I have many more.  It’s just the tip of the iceberg and all for you to enjoy.

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

                                                            –Albert Einstein

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.

                                                            –Dwight D. Eisenhower

Unless you try to do something beyond what you have already mastered, you will never grow.

                                                            –Ralph Waldo Emerson

Don’t bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.

                                                            –William Faulkner

 Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

                                                            –Douglas Adams

The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooist brutality, is patently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with the dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.

                                                            –John Adams

It is ridiculous to lay the blame of our wrong actions upon external causes, rather than on the facility with which we ourselves are caught by such causes.

                                                            –Aristotle

When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.

                                                            –Frederic Bastiat

 As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

                                                            –Josh Billings

I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. No agnostic ever burned anyone at the stake or tortured a pagan, a heretic, or an unbeliever.

                                                            –Daniel Boorstin

Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian.

                                                            –Heywood Broun

Aim at perfection in everything, though in most things it is unattainable. However, they who aim at it, and persevere, will come much nearer to it than those whose laziness and despondency make them give it up as unattainable.

                                                            –Philip Dormer Stanhope, Lord Chesterfield

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

                                                            –Winston Churchill

 Power will intoxicate the best hearts, as wine the strongest heads. No man is wise enough, nor good enough to be trusted with unlimited power.

                                                            –Charles Caleb Colton

Common experience shows how much rarer is moral courage than physical bravery. A thousand men will march to the mouth of the cannon where one man will dare espouse an unpopular cause.

                                                            –Clarence Darrow

Why are CEO’s who slash jobs so proud of themselves? Instead of bragging about “cutting fat,” they ought to be getting up before their employees and saying, “We did such a lousy job of planning and hiring that we have more people than work. And we are so broke and so dim-witted that we can’t come up with any way to get more work. So our only solution is to send a lot of good people home. I am ashamed and I am sorry.”                                                             –Dale Dauten

 Let no man turn aside, ever so slightly, from the broad path of honor, on the plausible pretence that he is justified by the goodness of his end. All good ends can be worked out by good means.

                                                            –Charles Dickens

 Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic.

                                                            –Fyodor Doestoyvsky

 By themselves, character and integrity do not accomplish anything. But their absence faults everything else.

                                                            –Peter Drucker

 Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

                                                            –Thomas Edison

And remember, vote well and vote often.

Wow, that was a close run thing.  Goody Two Shoes almost pulled it off, but, in the end, Angsty Teen won out.  Which is a good thing since this is a weekend I have my daughter, the original angsty teen to consult.

She is my first true love and, this weekend, I’m sharing her youthful wisdom and some of her inherent snarkiness with you all.  I consider you very lucky.  I know I am.

 By the way, there’s a new blog poll up (or will be in a minute or two).  And, in the interests of not driving myself crazy, my Saturday Quote-a-Thons will not be on teenagers, but on some other subject I’ll be thinking up.

So, it’s thieving Thursday again and thank heavens for the Secret of Newton who gave me many opportunities to make stealable comments.  In the end, though, I had to go with one of those unusual quirks that people don’t talk about that often.  Animal magnetism.

Not that that’s science, just speculation.

Well, I had fun with yesterday’s topic and recommend those that have wandered on to my site rather recently check out some related topics like Heaven and Hell , What I Don’t Believe in and The Face of God .  But one of the key elements of the discussion we just had here (Can of Worms ) was a question of semantics.

The converse of that, of course, is that, when used properly, language becomes incredibly evocative and powerful.  A couple of words, if they’re the right words, can speak volumes, evoke images and wring emotion from a reader.  That’s the power of our confused and backwards language, kluged together from bits and pieces of a world of languages.  It’s difficult, it’s complicated and it’s incredibly, beautifully versatile.

So, Brian on The Secret of Newton has decided that a can of worms isn’t enough for him .  He’s going for the whole semi.  And why not?  Controversy’s fun.

It’s even more fun, of course, since I’m on the opposite side of the controversy from Brian.  See Brian was thrown, apparently by Dr. Lawrence Krauss called Science and Religion: Two Ships in the Night where Dr. Krauss apparently says “Science may enrich faith, but not vice versa.”

Brian seemed to feel strongly that that wasn’t true , that, in fact, faith had done much to further science.  As he put it:

I think that faith has served as a tug which pulled science out of the harbor into the deep waters.  Yes science started before the foundation of America, but the connection of faith and science has a rich history.

He also said that, to him, “from faith springs freedom.”

There is an excellent discussion going in his comments and I urge anyone interested to join in.  I did, of course, but it got me thinking, and, although I put an article length comment in his discussion (and will likely put more), I wanted to talk about it here, too.  Because it’s a big discussion, not just about science, but also about how we argue the topic, and what the distinction is between faith, religion, and adherence to an ideology (which may or may not religious).  Truth is, this topic is probably too big for one blog, so I’ll likely be hitting it some more over the next week or two.

Let me add a couple of things.  First, I’m not trying to pick on Brian by arguing some of his points here.  Brian is not only funny and brilliant, he also appears to be quite open-minded and more than willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner - which has not always been my experience with others.  Secondly, I’m not in any way trying to argue against people having a religion or a faith.  Far from it.  In fact, I see no reason why they would be mutually exclusive; in my opinion, religion and science are not inherently in conflict.  But I also don’t see one having much effect on the other, much like Dr. Krauss.  To me (as I said on Brian’s blog), science requires data and evidence or it is speculation, not science.  Faith, by it’s very definition, does not.  In fact, one can make an argument that, if one has evidence to support something, it’s not really faith.

And I have to question the assertion that faith somehow leads to freedom. I guess I don’t understand this.  What does faith free one from?  What’s oppressive or enslaving about not having faith?   As much as I don’t have any issues with faith, I’m at a loss to understand why one is at a disadvantage without it.  I know any number of wonderful, thoughtful, caring, generous people, with high moral values and intelligent probing minds that are comfortably atheist.  I don’t see a problem with that either.

As to faith fostering science (especially since the Dark Ages), I can think of a great deal of evidence to the faith (and/or religion) working against science, but it’s harder for me to make the connection that faith in some way has fostered science in the past few centuries.  I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I am not familiar with any evidence to support such and assertion (and much to contest it).

But, since I’m joining in to the can of worms work, feel free to chime in with your own views.  I don’t corner the market on ideas and, just because I couldn’t think of strong arguments to support the friendly codependence of science and faith, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible.  I’d love to hear what you think.

So my boss sent me this link to a CNN story with the statement: “Perhaps you have an underdeveloped ‘oops’ area…”

Perhaps we could use a little more of that kind of brain damage.

So, time for a kid/family break, I think.  This was a very weird weekend for me.  My husband and I have been together for nearly seven  years now, and, in that time, the only times I’ve been separated from my husband have been when I’ve been stuck on travel, which I’ve kept to a minimum and generally hated.  But, when on travel, it’s been just me and my husband, the stay-at-home dad has taken care of the kids and usually gone through an orgy of cleaning during his generally trip-long insomnia.

Feel free to drop a comment or vote on the poll of course.  It’s still pretty lonely here.

OK, so the Movie Quote-a-Tron is way harder than I ever imagined.  And I explained it poorly and stuff.  Sorry, folks.  If I ever do it again, I’ll try and think of something that makes more sense.  Don’t worry, it won’t be any time soon.  Still, since we’re in movie quote mode, I might as well show some quotes I keep on my quote list mostly ’cause they make me laugh.  Some I gathered from Wikiquote at one point or another or from IMDB in the past.  Some are from memory, so no promises I didn’t flub a couple, but you get the gist.

Ms. Perky: People perceive you as somewhat…
Kat: Tempestuous?
Ms. Perky: “Heinous bitch” is the term used most often.  You might want to work on that.
-From 10 Things I Hate About You

Father: Hello, Kat, made anyone cry today?
Kat: Sadly, no, but it’s only 4:30.
-From 10 Things I Hate About You

Ms. Perky: You’ll be pleased to know his testicle retrieval operation was successful.
Kat: I still maintain he kicked himself in the balls.
-From 10 Things I Hate About You

Dionne Davenport: Hello! There was a stop sign.
Cher Horowitz: I totally paused.
-From Clueless

Josh Lucas: If I ever saw you do anything that wasn’t 90% selfish I’d die of shock.
Cher Horowitz: Oh, that’d be reason enough for me.
-From Clueless

Mel: Anything happens to my daughter, I got a .45 and a shovel, I doubt you would be missed.
-From Clueless

Morticia: Margaret, about the séance tonight, I wish you’d come. It’s Gomez. I’m terribly worried about him. He won’t eat, he can’t sleep, he keeps coughing up blood.
Margaret: He coughs up blood?
Morticia: Well, not like he used to.
-From The Addams Family

Insanity runs in my family. It practically gallops.
-Mortimer Brewster in Arsenic and Old Lace

[on telephone] Hello… Operator? Can you hear my voice? You can? Are you sure? [Hangs up] Well, then I must not be dreaming.
-Mortimer Brewster in Arsenic and Old Lace

I love it when mothers get so mad they can’t remember your name. “Come here, Roy, er, Rupert, er, Rutabaga… what is your name, boy? And don’t lie to me, because you live here, and I’ll find out who you are.
-From Bill Cosby:  Himself

Vance: [after telling Hitch that he only wants a girl so he can sleep with her] No, I was told that you help guys get in there.
Alex Hitch Hitchens: Right, but see, here’s the thing - my clients actually like women. “Hit it and quit it” is not my thing.
Vance: Let me make one thing clear to you, rabbi, I need professional help.
Alex Hitch Hitchens: Well, that is for damn certain
-From Hitch

Vance: [grabs Hitch by the wrist] You see what I’m doing? This is what I’m about - power suit, power tie, power steering. People can wince, cry, beg, but eventually they do what I want.
Alex Hitch Hitchens: Oh! So that’s, like, a metaphor?
Vance: Oh, yeah.
Alex Hitch Hitchens: Right. Well, see, I’m more of a literal kind of guy. So when I do this… [he reverses the grip, twists Vance’s arm back and slams him on the table]
Alex Hitch Hitchens: This is more like me saying that I will literally break your shit off if you ever touch me again. Okay, pumpkin?
-From Hitch

Moses - “The lord Jehovah has given you these fifteen… (drops stone tablet) Oi. Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!”
-From History of the Word, Part I

Memo to me, memo to me: maim you after my meeting.
-From Hercules

This is one time where television really fails to capture the true excitement of a large squirrel predicting the weather.
-From Groundhog Day

What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn’t one today.
-From Groundhog Day

Mr. Newberry: So, what have you been doing with your life?
Martin: Um… professional killer.
Mr. Newberry: Ah, good for you! It’s a growth industry
-From Gross Pointe Blank

Dr. Peter Venkman: Hey Egon, you know, this reminds me of the time that you tried to drill a hole through your head.
Dr. Egon Spengler: That would have worked if you hadn’t stopped me.
-From Ghostbusters

Chief Karlin: What’s your name?
Fletch: Fletch.
Chief Karlin: What’s your full name?
Fletch: Fletch F. Fletch.
Chief Karlin: What do you do for a living, Mr. Fletch?
Fletch: I’m a shepherd.
-From Fletch

Fletch: Can’t keep me here, chief.
Chief Karlin: Maybe I’m not going to keep you here. Maybe I’m going to blow your brains out.
Fletch: Well, now, I’m no lawyer, but… I do believe that’s a violation of my rights.
-From Fletch

Cameron: Ferris, my father loves this car more than life itself.
Ferris: A man with priorities so far out of whack doesn’t deserve such a fine automobile.
-From Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

Willie Wang: Why do I do all the dirty work, Pop?
Sidney Wang: Because your mother not here to do it.
-From Murder by Death

Willie Wang: Pop?
Sidney Wang: Yeah?
Willie Wang: Who do you think is the murderer?
Sidney Wang: Must sleep on it. Will know in morning when wake up.
Willie Wang: What if you don’t wake up?
Sidney Wang: Then you did it.
-From Murder by Death

Vinny: Ms. Vito, you’re supposed to be some kinda expert in automobiles, is that correct?… Is that correct?
Judge Haller: Would you please answer the counselor’s question?
Lisa: No, I hate him.
Vinny: Your Honor, may I treat this witness as hostile?
Mona Lisa: You think I’m hostile now? Wait ’til tonight.
Judge Haller: Do you two know each other?
Vinny: Yeah, she’s my fiancée.
Judge Haller: Well, that would certainly explain the hostility
-From My Cousin Vinny

You know, these clothes do not fancy you at all. It should be a dress or nothing. I happen to have no dress in my cabin.
-Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carribean:  Dead Man’s Chest

I’m listening. [Elizabeth holds a gun to his face] I’m listening intently.
-Lord Becket from Pirates of the Carribean:  Dead Man’s Chest

Elizabeth: There will come a moment when you have a chance to do the right thing.
Jack: I love those moments. I like to wave at them as they pass by.
-From Pirates of the Carribean:  Dead Man’s Chest

Me, I’m dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It’s the honest ones you want to watch out for. Because you can never predict when they’re going to do something incredibly… stupid.
-Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carribean:  Curse of the Black Pearl

I am disinclined to aquiesce to your request. Means no.
-Barbossa from Pirates of the Carribean:  Curse of the Black Pearl

Self-realization. I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, “I drank what?”
-Chris Knight from Real Genius

Chris Knight: I’m sorry, but have you ever seen a body like this before in your life?
David Decker: She happens to be my daughter.
Chris Knight: Oh. Then I guess you have.
-From Real Genius

Karen: So what’s this big news, then?
Daisy: [excited] We’ve been given our parts in the nativity play. And I’m the lobster.
Karen: The lobster?
Daisy: Yeah!
Karen: In the nativity play?
Daisy: [beaming] Yeah, first lobster.
Karen: There was more than one lobster present at the birth of Jesus?
Daisy: Duh.
-From Love Actually

[talking about her ex-boyfriend]
Natalie: He says no one’s gonna fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
Prime Minister: Ah! You know, um, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
Natalie: Thank you, sir. I’ll think about it.
Prime Minister: Do. The SAS are absolutely charming. Ruthless trained killers are just a phone call away.
-From Love Actually

Prime Minister: I’m not sure that politics and dating really go together.
The President: Really? I never found that.
Prime Minister: Yeah, well, the difference is you’re still sickeningly handsome, whereas I look increasingly like my Aunt Mildred.
-From Love Actually

Colin: [after insulting the food] And what do you do Nancy?
Nancy the caterer: I’m a cook.
Colin: Ever do weddings?
Nancy the caterer: Yes I do.
Colin: They should have asked you to do this one.
Nancy the caterer: They did.
Colin: God I wish you hadn’t turned it down.
Nancy the caterer: I didn’t.
-From Love Actually

Don’t forget to vote, now, so I can do something clever next week.  Life is experimental, you know.

Yep, it’s the Friday Ask ??? feature.  I know what you’re thinking.  Ask the Movie Quote-a-tron?  What the heck does that mean?

Well, for one thing, it means that, once again, cheating prevailed and something has won heavily.  But that probably doesn’t tell you what I’m going to do.  Well, I’ll tell you.

You’re going to ask me a question, any question, and I’m going to dig into what remains of my brain (the part where I keep the useless information - don’t ask me why none of that fades away like acronyms) and I have to cough up and appropriate quote to answer it - without looking anything up.

Which means, of course, since my once flawless phonographic memory has slipped a few gears since I became a frickin’ relic, I can’t promise word for word accuracy.  In fact, some may be completely butchered.  Others might be spot on.  There’s really no telling.

You might be asking, “Are you qualified to be a Movie Quote-a-Tron?”  Actually, you probably aren’t unless your life is incredibly empty, but I’ll answer it just as if you’d asked me.  Sure, why not.  Let me tell you a story.  A billion years ago, when I was a kid, my dad bought one of the first laserdisc players ever, one of the 12″ laserdisc jobbies.  Yep, we were trendsetters.  We had a laserdisc player for years before we had a VCR, I might add.  Unfortunately, the down side to being trendsetters is that you get ‘em when there are still bugs.  Ours, we quickly discovered, would get a fuzzy picture after it warmed up, you know after like playing a disc or two.

Like all problems you can’t see until you’ve done it a while, of course the place where we bought it (where it was still warrantied) said there was nothing wrong with the picture.  Somehow, my dad convinced them to leave it playing despite their pooh-poohing and pshawing.  Later that day, it burst into flame.  Whoops.

It took a week or two to get another one.

The other drawback was that we were generally poor.  Now, my dad LOVED movies and so do I.  Love ‘em.  But, when you’re poor and just three down a hefty sum for a player, you can’t buy much to play it on.  We’d had a total of two movies Foul Play and Love at First Bite.  While we waited, my siblings and I whiled our hours away quoting the first few scenes of Love at First Bite, verbatim.  I can even mostly still do it, complete with accent which is nowhere near as effective typed.

So, to answer the question, no, I’m not qualified, but I’m not letting that stop me.  Remember, as with all “Ask ???” articles, you don’t ask a question, these are a complete bust.  The Movie Quote-a-Tron will be running all weekend and, no duh, I’ll be posting some favorite movie quotes tomorrow.

And don’t forget to vote (and vote often) on the new poll.  Remember, you can’t cheat effectively if you don’t vote often enough.

So, it’s official. I’m an “Uber Cool Nerd God” according to the “Nerd Test .” For those of you saying, “Well, duh, you’re a nerd,” hey, I’m not saying it’s a surprise. Though it is gratifying to be a nerd GOD. Anything worth doing is worth over doing.

Now, as we know, it’s Thieving Thursday and that’s cool because I saw this test on Kirsten’s Soccer Mom Files blog . I wasn’t among the elite few invited to take the test but I figured this was one that was right up my alley. And it was.

The surprise, though, was that I was also “Uber Cool.” Now, I was always of the impression that nerd and cool were mutually exclusive. Did something change when I wasn’t looking? Something happen since I was in high school and was so far from cool that I was effectively Mt. Vesuvious? It should be noted that, though a beautiful girl (though I didn’t know it at the time), I was also a boy/man repellent of surpassing talent. Usually, it only took 30 seconds.

Him: So what’s your major?
Me: Engineering Physics
Him: Well, gotta go.

Anyway, now that my beautiful girl days are long behind me and I know longer hang with any people that actually see my face, I went and got Uber Cool. Talk about a waste.   Still, I’m oddly gratified.

For the record, my husband (who can’t walk through a mall without being followed by wistful young girls and has many fawning minions on his chat server) was a “Dorky High Nerd” while my daughter, who is gorgeous and young and hangs with the angsty crowd was actually a “Highly Dorky Nerd Queen.” I don’t think being dorky bothered my husband nearly as much as not being as nerdy as he wanted to be.

I went and found the “original Nerd Test ,” too, but I’m still up there in nerdiness.  It’s *gasp* not a fluke!

The next blog , Kirsten challenged me to take the “Sanity Test .” You’ll be unsurprised to note that I’m apparently “Kinda Insane.”

Yeah, I thought so.

So, you willing to take the challenge?

So, today I’m supposed to talk about neutrinos.  Now, although I’m into applied-type physics, I actually learned a great deal about quantum physics in college since my independent study was involving lasers (which, oddly enough, I can remember next to nothing about, except that happens to be one of the acronyms I remember.  Go figure.).  I even remember a little of it.

Anyway, I enjoyed quantum physics despite the mind-blowing math and the abstract concepts that were diametrically opposed to classical physics (which, incidently, I was taking the same semester.  For those pursuing a physics degree, let me recommend against this stratagem).

One of the concepts about quantum physics that is very very hard to elucidate but is essential to understand is that quantum physics denotes particles no one actually sees.  In some cases, we can directly measure the quiet “massive” pieces like protons and neutrons, but the zippy lightweight stuff that doesn’t like to sit still, well, we don’t so much as see it as infer things about it indirectly.  Electrons, which are pretty tame in the small zippy particle category we can know a great deal including, energy, spin, position, “rest mass” etc.  But Heisenberg made it clear that we can’t know everything about it.  We can know the energy but have no idea where it is or we figure out where it is and have no earthly clue how much energy it has.  That’s what’s kind of freaky about quantum physics.  We have to guess what these things that don’t fit any of our classical definitions are without really knowing what they are.  For instance, you’ll notice I said “rest mass” as opposed to mass.  Truth is, they don’t stop, so we figure out it’s mass with other factors and presume what it would weigh if it wasn’t zipping around so damn fast (which is different that what it weighs zipping around so fast).  What’s that last bit again?

Ah, another bit for relativity.  One of my Einstein’s theories is that nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light and that, in fact, if something gets to where it’s approaching the speed of light, it will get very very massive.  I’d try to explain why, but that would take up at least another blog, so bear with me.  Let’s say, for argument’s sake here, that the mass is different because the electron moves so quickly than if it were taking a breather and having a lemonade.

What does all that have to do with neutrinos?  Well, neutrinos are a lot like electrons except they are even smaller, even zippier and have no charge (where as electrons have a “negative” charge that keeps them wooing the positively charged nucleus of an atom).  They (and their antimatter counterpart antineutrinos - antimatter, another completely different blog topic) are given off when protons become neutrons and neutrons become protons.  This happens in a number of ways including the sun’s fusion properties, the processes in certain man-made nuclear reactors and atoms being struck by cosmic rays.  The lack of charge, however, makes it extra interesting because, unlike other forms of radiation, just about nothing stops a neutrino.

Per that little drawing up there, most forms of radiation can be stopped by something.  But most of them have a charge or a substantial mass.  The bigger (and more destructive) they are, the harder it is for them to penetrate.  For instance, alpha is far more destructive than gamma radiation, but you have to ingest it into your body to hurt you because it doesn’t penetrate skin.  Neutrinos are a form of radiation in that they are expelled from atomic reactions, but, unlike most other forms, it’s almost impossible to stop them.  That’s why detecting them is so difficult.  It takes a lot of a substance to catch one or two and, then, we don’t really see the neutrino, just the reaction it had.  Perhaps you’re getting why quantum physics is unusual.

Neutrinos can blast right through the earth and us (and do) every second and we’d never know.  Before you faint from shock, note that it’s the interaction of radiation that does us harm.  If we happen to get zapped with gamma radiation, but it manages to miss all our atoms (no matter how high the dose), we’d be unharmed.  Because it’s hard to get hit with massive doses of gamma radiation without damage, we try to avoid it.  But neutrinos we can’t stop and don’t need to.  Because they aren’t attracted or repelled, they passe blithely through unnoticed and without causing harm.  But it’s a little freaky.

That’s what makes this so exciting for scientists.  Because they zip through positively everything, they can penetrate into places we have no other way of “seeing” which would make them fabulous for detecting things and probing things if we could just figure out a way to detect them reliably.  It’s the kind of thing that makes scientists who are into stuff like that get so thrilled they can’t sleep at night.  Me, I sleep fine.

So, I hope Ross, who had the interest in neutrinos found what he wanted to know.  And, if he didn’t, he (and anyone else) is welcome to ask more questions which I can look up as well.

One of the odd things about being a rocket scientist (or really any kind of scientist) is that people think you know about all aspects of science.  There are a few jack of all trade-type scientists, like myself, and most scientists understand the basics of science and the scientific process, which is good because we are constantly called upon to defend the science of others.  But, most scientists are, at least to an extent, specialists.  And, although I’m not, my degree has turned me toward a direction at exact odds from the bulk of the questions people ask me: applied physics.

See, many of the physicists people see on TV are theoretical physicists, people who speculate and theorize about such heavy concepts as the beginning of existence or some Unifying Theory that makes even quantum physics makes sense in a classically physical world or String Theory, which I literally had to look up.  Why did I have to look it up?  Well, I’m not a theoretical physicist.  Even when I was going to college, I just got bits and pieces because my degree was in Engineering Physics (and don’t ask me what Engineering Physicists do.  I asked my guidance counselor and he said, “They make good salaries.”  That was enough for the college student I was.)  So, if you want an explanation or an opinion on those sorts of things, I’ll try to accommodate, but I’m not an expert.  I understand them at a high level, but I’ll be lookin’ ‘em up first to explain them to you.

There is only so much room in my brain, y’see, especially after NASA’s acronym saturation.  In fact, I can’t learn any more acronyms after working to Hubble Space Telescope missions (57 pages, two column, single spaced of acronyms just for HST, so that didn’t count EVA systems, Shuttle systems and NASA in general).  I can no longer learn acronyms and, if I accidently learn a new one, I drop one of the ones I already knew (and I don’t get to decide which one or get any insight into which one I lost until I need it).  For instance, I used to remember what NASA stood for.

Any way, my point is that I’m sort of an engineer as much as I’m a physicist (and if you want someone to design a thermal dynamic system or an electrical circuit or a mechanical braking system, you might want to go to a specialist.  Seriously.), so I’m not an expert in all things physics.  But don’t stop asking me, ’cause I love to learn and I won’t tell you anything I don’t know or don’t have a reliable source for.  I’ve been doing NASA stuff for so long, a little brain stretching is good for me.  So, tomorrow, I’ll be talking about neutrinos since someone wanted me to.

And, of course, when I talk about one subatomic particle that is almost impossible to detect and travels nearly at the speed of light, I might springboard into a completely different topic like faster-than-the-speed-of-light but also hypothetical tachyons.  Truth is, you never know what you’ll find here.

Isn’t that cool?

The Secret of Newton , which is one of my new favorite blogs despite my deplorable lack of interest in whatever secret Newton might have had, has this ongoing discussion with, at the least, himself on something called Crayon Physics.  Now, if you’re one of those hip science/philosophy types that goes, “Duh, everyone knows about Crayon Physic,” you might want to stop right here.  I’ll admit, I’d never heard of Crayon Physics before reading his blog and the references I found elsewhere keep pointing to a game where people can do stuff in a computer to manipulate a ball like one does in real life.

I’m presuming they are related.  Secret of Newton has been discussing scenarios where virtual reality become so complete, so wondrous, so perfect, that a ball is simulated with texture and weight, physics and appearance so perfectly it is impossible to discern the difference between it and a real ball.  And that people are willing to fork over fortunes to “play” with this nonexistent simulation (as well as speculating about the repercussions in such a scenario if, for simplicity, they substituted a real ball to save themselves a hassle).  And that’s where he lost me.

Oh, not because I don’t believe people would pay ridiculous amounts to do something like that.  Truth is, you could probably come up with a VR ride today that could fool people into thinking they had a real ride into space.  And, if you couldn’t, it won’t be long.  People get excited on the slimmest excuses, about this or that celebrity (you’re not confusing them with reality are you?) or this or that cyber commodity like points or credits.  Heck, people sell Diablo II and World of Warcraft items (and probably items from other on-line games as well) on eBay, for real money!

No, I’m lost because I don’t get that.  Why in the world would playing with a simulated ball be better than playing with a real one?  Can’t hit your son in the head (which mine loves for some inexplicable reason) with a simulated ball and, if you could, what’s wrong with a real one?  I don’t get games where I pretend to play football or basketball or do anything else I’d be better off doing in real life (Cyber-swimming, now in 3-D!).  Why play in the snow on-line if you have snow outside and, if you hate snow, why are you playing with it on line?  Can you honestly tell me a cyber cat is as good as a real one?  Why would you want it to be?  Another big one even in video games I love: fishing.  Cyber fishing?  Are you kidding me?  I don’t understand the draw.

Nor do I understand all the work to come up with cheat codes and “buy” or finagle good items.  Um, isn’t the whole point to do it yourself?  (Stop throwing erasers at me!  OK, a different time, ’cause I’ve had this discussion with my husband and I don’t get this either).

Now, there are things I enjoy doing in a simulated environment, like kicking major butt with weapons and sharp stuff in a world where everything I slash is nasty and or demonstrably evil, but, even there, I don’t want it to be so real it’s like, you know, really killing stuff.  If the blood and gore get too realistic, if I can feel the bones crunching with my blows, I’ve been taken too far. [And, if that sounds good to you, you might want to seek professional help.]  (Barbrawl 2000:  Now with mouth guard - you’ll need it!)

There are other things I like to do virtually, of course.  Some things I can do cyber fine: travel and stuff, that’s cool.  I suck as a tourist.  Even so, I’d rather see and go some places in person.  I can do cyber lessons and learning with a smile.  I love telecons vs. actual meetings (yay, can get stuff done at the same time!) and many other virtual time savers like instant document transferal and chat.

So, if you’re the sort that thinks its perfectly reasonable to lay out big bucks to do something you can readily do in real life but virtually, I can safely say, I don’t get it.  But to each their own.

(Don’t forget to vote!)